retro-grouch wrote:[Spencer]Larsen as a fifth year player could best be described as solid, if unspectacular. 3.6 yards per carry on about fifteen runs and 8.4 yards per catch on a double handful of passes (2011). He did everything asked of him pretty well, but if he's a rocket waiting for someone to light his fuse, that someone was not Kyle Orton or Tim Tebow.

I was disappointed to see Spencer go. I thought he was among the best football players and effort guys on the Broncos. The Pats apparently thought so, too, if you read on.

I intended this response to point out that Spencer did more than he was asked by the Broncos...{cut for brevity}

Yeah, I'm not sure if I entirely believe the Patriots when they list Larsen as a linebacker, not because I don't think he can play some defense, but it seems likely that McDaniels wants Larsen for some offensive purpose and Belichik loves to dish out as much disinformation as he can get away with.

It's possible that the Patriots only want to use a fullback in certain specific circumstances, against certain pass rushers on their schedule, for example or in certain types of short yardage situations. In that scenario Larsen could be a backup/rotational LB and maybe also play some special teams while still being available for the necessary role on offense.

It's possible that the Broncos also have this view of the FB being only really necessary in certain specific situations, but they add a few rushes and pass plays to get more mileage out of the roster spot. Obviously, they can't be obvious about matching plays to personnel packages so they add fullback passes, draws, etc. to defeat the expectation of an inside run.

Justabroncofan wrote:Being a fullback is a thankless job it seems. I felt Howard Griffith should have had many more honors than he did because of the way he helped pave the way through the line of scrimmage for Davis. He also ran and caught passes extremely well when he was called upon. In my opinion he was one of the best blocking backs to play the game.

Howard Griffith was, indeed, a great Bronco! Not only was he a crushing blocker, he also caught some very timely passes, including in the Super Bowl.

He was also the LAST good fullback the team has had. The advent of four and five receiver sets has minimized most teams' ability to field full-time fullbacks. These days, they're called tight ends, who sometimes line up in the backfield.

Justabroncofan wrote:Being a fullback is a thankless job it seems. I felt Howard Griffith should have had many more honors than he did because of the way he helped pave the way through the line of scrimmage for Davis. He also ran and caught passes extremely well when he was called upon. In my opinion he was one of the best blocking backs to play the game.

Howard Griffith was, indeed, a great Bronco! Not only was he a crushing blocker, he also caught some very timely passes, including in the Super Bowl.

He was also the LAST good fullback the team has had. The advent of four and five receiver sets has minimized most teams' ability to field full-time fullbacks. These days, they're called tight ends, who sometimes line up in the backfield.

retro-grouch wrote:I'm not sure if I entirely believe the Patriots when they list Larsen as a linebacker...[because] Belichick loves to dish out as much disinformation as he can get away with.

True that, but, then again,

retro-grouch wrote:It's possible that the Patriots only want to use a fullback in certain specific circumstances, against certain pass rushers on their schedule, for example or in certain types of short yardage situations. In that scenario Larsen could be a backup/rotational LB and maybe also play some special teams while still being available for the necessary role on offense.

I wasn't trying to assert that Belichick would necessarily use Spencer at LB full time, or even start him full-time at LB. But I found it curious that Belichick has him on the roster at LB and not FB. That was really the purpose of my post, and to my great surprise after my research revealed the Pats are listing Spencer as a LB.

Just consider how Belichick finds and uses football players. He sees hidden gold in them (example: Tom Brady), including many he rescues from the scrap heap, and he uses their best talents to advantage.

A speculative example would have been Tim Tebow. Everyone knew that: 1) Belichick was interested in Mr. T; and 2) he was very familiar with him because he and then-Florida coach Urban Meyer are friends. Only Belichick knows how he would have used Mr. T, but, believe me, a Belichick-coached Mr. T would have been a lethal special-purpose football weapon. But I digress......

broncovino wrote:"...making Vaughn one of only two undrafted cornerbacks in NFL history to return a kickoff and an interception for touchdowns."

The state of Colorado is home to many bizarre sports records and distinctions.

Bill McCartney, former CU football coach is the only head coach in NCAA history to kick to a "Rocket" (Raghib Ismail), a "Missile" (Qadry Ismail), a "Jett" (James Jett) and a "Little Train" (Lionel James).

Matt Prater has the highest percentage of kicks made from 50+ yards (.750/ 12-of-16) in NFL history.

David Thompson lost the NBA scoring title by the smallest margin in NBA history (seven one hundredths of a point).

No Denver Bronco QB except for Tim Tebow (0-2) has ever lost to Tom Brady. This includes Griese, Plummer, Cutler and Orton.

If Tim Tebow doesn't lose to Tom Brady by five touchdowns twice, then he has an AFC Championship runner-up ring (at the very minimum) and is not a footnote/punchline in Broncos' history.

Once again, Vino never ceases to be wrong in his anti-Tebow assertions.

Danny Kannell and the Broncos lost to Tom Brady and the Patriots in 2003, 30-26.

Jay Cutler lost to Matt Cassel and the Patriots 41-7 in 2008. That's a WHOLE lot worse than Tim Tebow losing to Tom Brady.

On a side note: If you think Jay Cutler wouldn't have lost to that same Patriots team WITH Tom Brady instead of Matt Cassel, you are dreaming. Had Brady been playing in that game, Cutler may have been the QB for the worst beat down in Broncos history.

Continue to bash Tebow, Vino. It's making you look more and more like a joke every time you do. Most of us have moved on from that experiment but you (his biggest detractor), for some reason, can't seem to get through one day of your life without talking about him.

Yes Vino. Stop bashing Tebow!! His inability to demonstrate any of the prerequisite skills of a Quarterback in the NFL says it all. You are kicking a dead horse in the town square. The only people that still think he is a QB will never see the light.

Voice_of_Reason wrote:Jeff, I didn' take much away from this article. The Post bills you as the guru of the NFL 2012 draft. Most of your articles are not NFL astute. Today your are reporting in a whining sort of way that the Broncos traded a sub par hardley used player. I fail to see great value in Cassius Vaughn. He is hardly a Champ Bailey replacement. We are overstocked at that position. We need some help at fullback. I hope Gronkowski works out. With Spencer Larsen gone the trade makes sense. It's football! How about offering more information on the player we just picked up. Give us a little more background depth on Gronkowski. Earn you pay check!

We may have been overstocked at CB, but you can't tell me some of those guys on the roster are clear cut better than Vaughn was. The other element touched on in this article was special teams, and we saw Vaughn do some pretty good returns. We already lost Eddie Royal. But unless at least one of those other guys on the roster at CB are as good on special teams, OR if ALL of them were clearly better than Vaughn at CB... I'd say it was a net loss.

I disagree, Thrawn. Not because I think Gronk was a great addition, but because I don't think Cassius was as valuable as you (or this article) are making him out to be. He was an OK back up CB, but with the addition of Porter and Florence, every CB except for Champ got pushed down a notch. Those 3 are the top 3 no matter what. Then you have Chris Harris who, IMO, is a far better cover man than Vaughn and makes plays in the run game as well and you add in Omar Bolden and that puts Cassius at 6th string at best. CV was definitely an asset in the return game, but there are plenty of younger guys out there who will fill that role (Page, Hillman, Bolden, Andre Caldwell). Also remember that Vaughn is coming off major knee surgery that put him out the majority of the year. You wanna role the dice with a veteran CB coming off a major knee injury? (Side note: I know Bolden missed his senior year with an ACL injury, so I'm still a little skeptical of that pick)

Bottom line is that CV was never going to make this team. He may be a better player RIGHT NOW than Omar Bolden or (in some people's eyes) Chris Harris, but in the long run, those guys are seen as more talented with a brighter future at the CB spot. He was a guy with enough talent and promise to warrant something in return, so Elway pulled the trigger instead of wasting his (and the Broncos') time by bringing him to camp only to cut him.

All those points are reason enough for me to be OK with the trade, but then you add into the mix the fact that he was a McDaniels' guy and Bolden, Harris, etc are Fox/Elway guys and I think you have the best explanation as to why this happened. Isn't that the reason you and many others were throwing out there for the justification of Elway and Fox "not owing Tebow anything"? The new regime obviously wants their guys, not leftovers from McD. I don't expect Sydquann Thompson to make this team either, but he just doesn't warrant anything in a trade that they might as well keep him in to compete in camp.

"Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked."

broncovino wrote:"...making Vaughn one of only two undrafted cornerbacks in NFL history to return a kickoff and an interception for touchdowns."

The state of Colorado is home to many bizarre sports records and distinctions.

Bill McCartney, former CU football coach is the only head coach in NCAA history to kick to a "Rocket" (Raghib Ismail), a "Missile" (Qadry Ismail), a "Jett" (James Jett) and a "Little Train" (Lionel James).

Matt Prater has the highest percentage of kicks made from 50+ yards (.750/ 12-of-16) in NFL history.

David Thompson lost the NBA scoring title by the smallest margin in NBA history (seven one hundredths of a point).

No Denver Bronco QB except for Tim Tebow (0-2) has ever lost to Tom Brady. This includes Griese, Plummer, Cutler and Orton.

If Tim Tebow doesn't lose to Tom Brady by five touchdowns twice, then he has an AFC Championship runner-up ring (at the very minimum) and is not a footnote/punchline in Broncos' history.

Once again, Vino never ceases to be wrong in his anti-Tebow assertions.

Danny Kannell and the Broncos lost to Tom Brady and the Patriots in 2003, 30-26.

Jay Cutler lost to Matt Cassel and the Patriots 41-7 in 2008. That's a WHOLE lot worse than Tim Tebow losing to Tom Brady.

On a side note: If you think Jay Cutler wouldn't have lost to that same Patriots team WITH Tom Brady instead of Matt Cassel, you are dreaming. Had Brady been playing in that game, Cutler may have been the QB for the worst beat down in Broncos history.

Continue to bash Tebow, Vino. It's making you look more and more like a joke every time you do. Most of us have moved on from that experiment but you (his biggest detractor), for some reason, can't seem to get through one day of your life without talking about him.

Yes Vino. Stop bashing Tebow!! His inability to demonstrate any of the prerequisite skills of a Quarterback in the NFL says it all. You are kicking a dead horse in the town square. The only people that still think he is a QB will never see the light.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were agreeing with me about Vino's ridiculous beating of a dead horse, but it's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic.

I just think it's ridiculous that no matter what the article is about, no matter how much he agrees with it, he always finds a way to bring Tebow into it in a negative light. He cherry picks stats and makes outlandish claims to continue his crusade against "Tebow Nation", and most of the time he's wrong. I feel, as an objective Bronco fan and poster of this site, it is necessary to make sure newer, more impressionable Bronco fans don't get their heads filled with his garb.

"Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked."

retro-grouch wrote:I'm not sure if I entirely believe the Patriots when they list Larsen as a linebacker...[because] Belichick loves to dish out as much disinformation as he can get away with.

True that, but, then again,

retro-grouch wrote:It's possible that the Patriots only want to use a fullback in certain specific circumstances, against certain pass rushers on their schedule, for example or in certain types of short yardage situations. In that scenario Larsen could be a backup/rotational LB and maybe also play some special teams while still being available for the necessary role on offense.

I wasn't trying to assert that Belichick would necessarily use Spencer at LB full time, or even start him full-time at LB. But I found it curious that Belichick has him on the roster at LB and not FB. That was really the purpose of my post, and to my great surprise after my research revealed the Pats are listing Spencer as a LB.

Just consider how Belichick finds and uses football players. He sees hidden gold in them (example: Tom Brady), including many he rescues from the scrap heap, and he uses their best talents to advantage.

A speculative example would have been Tim Tebow. Everyone knew that: 1) Belichick was interested in Mr. T; and 2) he was very familiar with him because he and then-Florida coach Urban Meyer are friends. Only Belichick knows how he would have used Mr. T, but, believe me, a Belichick-coached Mr. T would have been a lethal special-purpose football weapon. But I digress......

Last edited by kenplant2007 on May 29th, 2012, 8:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Repeat after me....The much maligned defense did not lose the Super Bowl...The blame goes to the Coaching staff and the High Flying Offense led by #18...

retro-grouch wrote:I'm not sure if I entirely believe the Patriots when they list Larsen as a linebacker...[because] Belichick loves to dish out as much disinformation as he can get away with.

True that, but, then again,

retro-grouch wrote:It's possible that the Patriots only want to use a fullback in certain specific circumstances, against certain pass rushers on their schedule, for example or in certain types of short yardage situations. In that scenario Larsen could be a backup/rotational LB and maybe also play some special teams while still being available for the necessary role on offense.

I wasn't trying to assert that Belichick would necessarily use Spencer at LB full time, or even start him full-time at LB. But I found it curious that Belichick has him on the roster at LB and not FB. That was really the purpose of my post, and to my great surprise after my research revealed the Pats are listing Spencer as a LB.

Just consider how Belichick finds and uses football players. He sees hidden gold in them (example: Tom Brady), including many he rescues from the scrap heap, and he uses their best talents to advantage.

A speculative example would have been Tim Tebow. Everyone knew that: 1) Belichick was interested in Mr. T; and 2) he was very familiar with him because he and then-Florida coach Urban Meyer are friends. Only Belichick knows how he would have used Mr. T, but, believe me, a Belichick-coached Mr. T would have been a lethal special-purpose football weapon. But I digress......

agree that belicheck is very creative...who was expecting hernandez to line up as a FB and proceed to make the vaunted Broncos defense look lost.

Repeat after me....The much maligned defense did not lose the Super Bowl...The blame goes to the Coaching staff and the High Flying Offense led by #18...

Voice_of_Reason wrote:Jeff, I didn' take much away from this article. The Post bills you as the guru of the NFL 2012 draft. Most of your articles are not NFL astute. Today your are reporting in a whining sort of way that the Broncos traded a sub par hardley used player. I fail to see great value in Cassius Vaughn. He is hardly a Champ Bailey replacement. We are overstocked at that position. We need some help at fullback. I hope Gronkowski works out. With Spencer Larsen gone the trade makes sense. It's football! How about offering more information on the player we just picked up. Give us a little more background depth on Gronkowski. Earn you pay check!

We may have been overstocked at CB, but you can't tell me some of those guys on the roster are clear cut better than Vaughn was. The other element touched on in this article was special teams, and we saw Vaughn do some pretty good returns. We already lost Eddie Royal. But unless at least one of those other guys on the roster at CB are as good on special teams, OR if ALL of them were clearly better than Vaughn at CB... I'd say it was a net loss.

Thrawn - Obviously Cassius Vaughn was better than some of the CB's who will not make the team. We TRADED him for another player of value, Chris Gronkowski. We need Gronkowski more than we need Vaughn. Chris' brother Dan played for the Broncos as a Tight End. He plays for the Browns now. His brother Rob is a Tight End for New England. Vaughn was way down on our dept chart behind Champ, Porter and Florence. Omar Bolden will make the team. The facts are Vaughn is coming back from a serious knee surgery. The coaches are looking to other players for special teams. Outside of injury he had no chance of making the team. The evidence is we needed Chris Gronkowski at full Back / Tight End more than we needed Cassius Vaughn.

Voice_of_Reason wrote: The evidence is we needed Chris Gronkowski at full Back / Tight End more than we needed Cassius Vaughn.

I would have been fine keeping Larsen. Chris Gronkowski isn't needed at TE either, we have FOUR of them that would presumably be ahead of him in the dept chart.

Seems like a lateral move to me. My take on needing Vaughn was STRICTLY as a special teams return man. That is the tiebreaker for me as he HAS shown some ability there that a lot of our guys don't seem to have. Our special teams was very much improved from the disaster they were the years before. (Though I thank the new kickoff rules and all those touchbacks for part of it.)